1

2026:CGHC:30327

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC No. 1137 of 2026

Order Reserved on 30.06.2026

Order Delivered on 17.07.2026

1 - Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Institute Of Medical Sciences And

Research Established Under Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Lok Kalyan

Trust, Regd. Under Indian Trust Act On 29th March 2000, Situated

At Village Pacheda, P.O Kurru, Tehsil Abhanpur, Nawa Raipur,

Raipur, Chhattisgarh Through Its Director Vishal Garg

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of

Health And Family Welfare And Medical Education, Swasthya

Bhawan, State Govt. Office, Sector 19, Kotara Bhantha, Atal

Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2

2 - Commissioner/ Director Directorate Of Medical Education,

North Block, Swasthya Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Sector 19, Atal Nagar,

Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Memorial Health Science And Ayush

University Sector 40, Uparwara, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar,

Chhattisgarh Through Its Registrar

4 - National Medical Commission Of India, Pocket-14, Sector 8

Dwarka Phase I, New Delhi, 110077, Through Its Secretary

... Respondent(s)

(Cause Title is taken from CIS System)

For Petitioner :Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate

along with Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Mr.

Rahul Ambast, Ms. Ananya Pandey,

Advocates

For State :Mr. R.K. Gupta, Addl. A.G.

For Respondent No. 3:Mr. Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate

For Respondent No. 4:Mr. J.N. Nande along with Mr. Aniruddhh

Shrivastava, Advocates

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

CAV Order

1.By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, the petitioner, Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Institute of

Medical Sciences and Research, seeks urgent intervention

of this Hon’ble Court against the arbitrary and erroneous

action of the Department of Medical Education (DME),

3

Government of Chhattisgarh, whereby the petitioner’s

application for enhancement of undergraduate MBBS seats

from 100 to 250 for the Academic Year 2026–27 has been

partially disallowed. The respondent authority, vide

impugned Essentiality Certificate dated 03.02.2026, has

granted approval for enhancement of only 50 seats, instead

of the 150 seats applied for. Consequently, the Consent of

Affiliation dated 03.02.2026 issued by Pt. Deendayal

Upadhyay Memorial Health Sciences and Ayush University,

Raipur, has also been restricted to a total intake of 150

seats, which is also under challenge in the present petition.

2.Subject matter in brief is that the petitioner, Shri Rawatpura

Sarkar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, is a

private (unaided) medical institution imparting

undergraduate medical education under the aegis of Shri

Rawatpura Sarkar Lok Kalyan Trust, a non-profit

organization engaged in the field of education, healthcare

and social welfare. The Respondent No.02, namely the

Director, Medical Education, State of Chhattisgarh, is the

competent authority vested with the power to assess the

infrastructure, faculty, clinical material and other requisite

facilities of a medical institution for the purpose of issuance

of Essentiality Certificate in FORM–2. The Respondent

4

No.03, Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Memorial Health Sciences

and Ayush University, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, is the statutory

authority empowered to grant Consent of Affiliation in

FORM–3 on the basis of the Essentiality Certificate so

issued. In the present case, the Respondent No.02 has

issued the impugned Essentiality Certificate dated

03.02.2026 in an arbitrary and erroneous manner by

partially disallowing the petitioner’s application for

enhancement of MBBS (UG) seats for the Academic Year

2026–27, without properly appreciating the existing

infrastructure, faculty strength, and clinical material available

with the petitioner institution. Consequently, the Respondent

No.03 has mechanically issued the Consent of Affiliation

dated 03.02.2026 restricting the intake capacity, solely on

the basis of the impugned Essentiality Certificate. It is

submitted that the petitioner institution fulfills all the requisite

norms and standards for enhancement of seats, as evident

from its application and supporting documents. However, the

respondent authorities have failed to consider the same in

its proper perspective and have also ignored the earlier

Essentiality Certificate and Consent of Affiliation granted in

the year 2025. The impugned actions have been taken

without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner

5

and are in clear violation of the principles of natural justice.

Hence, the present writ petition.

3.The chronological events relevant for adjudication of the

present writ petition are that Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Lok

Kalyan Trust (SRLKT) was established on 29.03.2000 as a

non-profit welfare organization dedicated to the upliftment of

underprivileged sections of society. Thereafter, in the year

2024, the petitioner institute was established as a self-

financing (unaided) medical institution under the aegis of the

said Trust. On 16.01.2025, the Directorate of Medical

Education, Chhattisgarh issued an Essentiality Certificate

granting approval for 100 MBBS seats for the Academic

Year 2025–26, which was made valid for a period of three

years. Subsequently, on 17.01.2025, Pt. Deendayal

Upadhyay Memorial Health Sciences and Ayush University,

Chhattisgarh, Raipur issued the corresponding Consent of

Affiliation for 100 MBBS seats. Thereafter, the petitioner

submitted an application before the competent authority

seeking issuance of an Essentiality Certificate for

enhancement of intake from 100 to 250 MBBS seats for the

Academic Year 2026–27. An inspection of the petitioner

institute was conducted on 16.01.2026, and thereafter, on

24.01.2026, Respondent No.02 issued a communication

6

alleging certain deficiencies on the basis of the said

inspection. However, the inspection report was never

furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner, vide

communication dated 29.01.2026, submitted its reply

clarifying that all the alleged deficiencies had been duly

rectified and requested the authorities to conduct a re-

inspection. Pursuant thereto, a re-inspection was carried

out; however, the report of such re-inspection has not been

supplied to the petitioner till date. Thereafter, on 03.02.2026,

Respondent No.02 issued the impugned Essentiality

Certificate granting enhancement of only 50 additional

MBBS seats, allegedly without considering the petitioner's

reply or the outcome of the re-inspection. Consequently, on

the same date, i.e., 03.02.2026, Respondent No.03

University issued the Consent of Affiliation restricted to the

intake sanctioned under the impugned Essentiality

Certificate.

4.Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:-

“10.1 That, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court

may kindly be pleased to call for the entire

records concerning the case of the petitioner

from the possession of the respondents for its

kind perusal.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

7

pleased to issue appropriate writ quashing

and setting aside the impugned Essentiality

Certificate dated 03.02.2026 (Annexure P/1)

as well as Consent of Affiliation dated

03.02.2026 (Annexure P/2) issued by the

Respondents No. 02 & 03 respectively,

declaring the same to be illegal and

inoperative in law.

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to issue appropriate writ commanding

the Respondents to issue fresh EC and COA

to the petitioner for 250 seats for UG-MBBS

Courses for AY 2026-27.

10.4 Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon'ble

Court may think fit and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case, with cost of the

petition may also please be granted to the

petitioners.”

5.Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a private

unaided medical college imparting graduate medical

education under the aegis of Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Lok

Kalyan Trust, a registered trust established on 29.03.2000,

and functioning as a self-financing institution at Raipur

(Chhattisgarh). The present petition has been filed seeking

enforcement of the petitioner’s fundamental rights under

Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and for

8

issuance of appropriate writ directing the respondents to

grant revised Essentiality Certificate (EC) and Consent of

Affiliation (COA) for enhancement of 150 MBBS (UG) seats

for the Academic Year 2026–27. The petitioner had applied

for the said enhancement vide application dated 05.01.2026;

however, Respondent No.02 issued a letter dated

24.01.2026 alleging certain deficiencies based on an

inspection report dated 16.01.2026, which was never

supplied to the petitioner, and many of such deficiencies

were either rectified on the spot or were within permissible

limits. The petitioner thereafter sought re-inspection vide

letter dated 29.01.2026, pursuant to which re-inspection was

conducted on 02.02.2026, but the report thereof has also

not been furnished. Despite this, Respondent No.02, without

affording any opportunity of hearing and without supplying

inspection reports, arbitrarily issued the impugned EC dated

03.02.2026 partially disallowing the enhancement of seats.

Consequently, Respondent No.03 University issued the

impugned COA dated 03.02.2026 solely based on the

defective EC, without independent application of mind and in

violation of Section 39(3) of the Act of 2008. The petitioner

institution fulfills all requisite norms relating to infrastructure,

faculty and clinical material, and had earlier been granted

9

EC and COA in 2025, which have been ignored by the

respondents. The petitioner also submitted a representation

dated 27.02.2026 highlighting these irregularities; however,

no relief has been granted. The actions of the respondents

are arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice,

and contrary to statutory regulations including the

Establishment of New Medical Institutions, Assessment and

Rating Regulations, 2023 and the scheme of the National

Medical Commission Act, 2019, leaving the petitioner with

no efficacious alternative remedy except to approach this

Court.

6.Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate appears

along with Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Mr. Rahul Ambast, Ms.

Ananya Pandey, Counsel for the petitioner submit that the

present writ petition raises substantial questions of law

relating to arbitrariness in administrative action, violation of

principles of natural justice, and non-compliance with

statutory mandates governing medical education in India.

The impugned Essentiality Certificate dated 03.02.2026

issued by Respondent No.02 and the consequential

Consent of Affiliation dated 03.02.2026 issued by

Respondent No.03 are ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and

unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the entire action of

10

the respondents is vitiated on account of gross violation of

the principles of natural justice. The foundation of the

impugned action rests upon inspection reports dated

16.01.2026 and re-inspection dated 02.02.2026; however,

neither of these reports were ever supplied to the petitioner

nor any opportunity of hearing was granted. It is a settled

proposition of law that any authority taking adverse action

must disclose the material relied upon so as to enable the

affected party to respond effectively. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court in T. Takano v. SEBI (2022) 8 SCC 162 and Amit

Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2023) 20 SCC 486 has

categorically held that non-supply of material relied upon

vitiates the entire decision-making process. In the present

case, the petitioner was deprived of any meaningful

opportunity to rebut the alleged deficiencies. It is further

submitted that even assuming, without admitting, that

certain deficiencies existed, the petitioner had specifically

responded vide letter dated 29.01.2026 stating that such

deficiencies stood rectified and had requested re-inspection.

Though a re-inspection was conducted on 02.02.2026, the

report thereof was never communicated. Shockingly, the

impugned EC came to be issued on the very next day i.e.,

03.02.2026, without granting any opportunity to the

11

petitioner to address the findings of the re-inspection. Such

undue haste clearly reflects a pre-determined and arbitrary

exercise of power, rendering the impugned action liable to

be quashed.

7.It is also pertinent to submit that the alleged deficiencies, as

reflected in the communication dated 24.01.2026, are

vague, general, and largely informational in nature. In fact,

the petitioner institution fulfills all the prescribed norms

relating to infrastructure, faculty strength, and clinical

material for enhancement to 250 MBBS seats, as per the

National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and the applicable

Regulations of 2023. The respondents have failed to

consider the detailed material placed on record by the

petitioner demonstrating full compliance. Another significant

aspect which has been completely overlooked by the

respondents is that the petitioner institution had already

been granted an Essentiality Certificate dated 16.01.2025

and Consent of Affiliation dated 17.01.2025 for 100 seats,

which continue to remain valid for a period of three years.

The respondents have failed to appreciate that the

petitioner’s infrastructure has only improved thereafter,

including enhancement of hospital capacity and facilities.

Thus, the impugned decision is not only arbitrary but also

12

contrary to the record and past conduct of the respondents

themselves.

8.It is submitted that the issuance of an Essentiality Certificate

by the State Government is a quasi-judicial function, which

must be exercised in a fair, transparent, and reasoned

manner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chintapurni

Medical College and Hospital v. State of Punjab (2018)

15 SCC 1 and Sukh Sagar Medical College v. State of

Madhya Pradesh (2021) 13 SCC 587 has clearly held that

the State cannot act arbitrarily while granting, modifying, or

revoking an Essentiality Certificate and must base its

decision on objective criteria. In the present case, the

respondents have acted in complete disregard of these

settled principles. It is further submitted that the action of

Respondent No.02 is also in violation of the statutory

scheme under the Establishment of New Medical

Institutions, Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023.

Regulation 30 specifically contemplates grant of reasonable

opportunity to rectify deficiencies before any adverse

decision is taken. The denial of such opportunity in the

present case renders the impugned action illegal and void.

Additionally, the Respondent No.03 University has acted

mechanically in issuing the impugned Consent of Affiliation

13

solely on the basis of the defective Essentiality Certificate,

without independent application of mind and in violation of

Section 39(3) of the Ayush and Health Sciences University

of Chhattisgarh Act, 2008. The University was duty-bound to

assess compliance independently, which has not been

done.

9.It is also submitted that the respondents have failed to

adhere to procedural timelines and fairness as emphasized

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mridula Dhar v. Union of

India (2005) 2 SCC 65. The impugned action has far-

reaching consequences. The petitioner institution has

invested substantial resources in infrastructure, faculty, and

facilities based on legitimate expectations arising from prior

approvals. The arbitrary restriction of seats not only results

in severe financial loss but also causes irreparable injury to

the reputation and goodwill of the institution. Such harm

cannot be compensated in monetary terms. It also infringes

the petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to

carry on occupation, as the restriction imposed is neither

reasonable nor in accordance with law. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

1 SCC 248 has held that any administrative action affecting

rights must be fair, just, and reasonable, which is clearly not

14

the case here. In view of the aforesaid facts and settled

legal position, it is most respectfully submitted that the

impugned Essentiality Certificate dated 03.02.2026 and

Consent of Affiliation dated 03.02.2026 are liable to be

quashed and set aside. It is, therefore, prayed that this

Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to issue a

fresh Essentiality Certificate and Consent of Affiliation

permitting enhancement of MBBS seats up to 250 for the

Academic Year 2026–27, in the interest of justice, equity,

and good conscience.

10.Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned Addl. A.G. appearing for the State/

respondents No.1 & 2 submits that the present writ petition

is misconceived, premature, and devoid of any merit, and is

liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It is submitted that

the impugned Essentiality Certificate dated 03.02.2026 and

the consequential Consent of Affiliation issued by the

University are merely preliminary steps in the statutory

scheme under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019

and the Establishment of New Medical Institutions,

Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023. The final

authority to grant or refuse permission for increase of MBBS

seats vests exclusively with the National Medical

Commission (NMC) and thereafter with the Central

15

Government under Regulations 32 and 33. The petitioner

has an efficacious and adequate alternative statutory

remedy, which it has deliberately bypassed. It is a settled

principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 ought not to

be invoked when such alternative remedy exists. It is further

submitted that the petitioner has not approached this Court

with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. The

petitioner institution has a chequered history of compliance,

including reduction of seats by the NMC in previous

academic sessions due to persistent deficiencies. The

present petition attempts to create a misleading narrative by

ignoring these material aspects. It is submitted that the

entire process undertaken by the State Government is fair,

transparent, and based on expert assessment. The

inspection and re-inspection were conducted by a duly

constituted Expert Committee comprising senior

academicians and medical professionals. The findings of the

Committee revealed a substantial deficiency of

approximately 22% in teaching faculty, which is a critical

requirement under the Minimum Standard Requirements

(MSR) prescribed by the NMC Regulations, 2023. The

adequacy of teaching faculty is foundational to maintaining

the quality of medical education, and any compromise in this

16

regard would directly affect students and public health at

large. He submits that the petitioner’s contention regarding

violation of principles of natural justice is wholly

misconceived. The petitioner was duly issued a deficiency

letter dated 24.01.2026, clearly indicating the shortcomings.

Upon the petitioner’s own request, a re-inspection was

promptly conducted on 02.02.2026. The findings of the re-

inspection reaffirmed that the resources were insufficient for

the requested increase in seats. It is submitted that the

requirement of natural justice does not extend to granting

repeated or indefinite opportunities, particularly where the

deficiencies are fundamental in nature. A shortage of 22% in

teaching faculty cannot be rectified overnight and does not

fall within the category of minor or curable deficiencies.

11.It is further submitted that the reliance placed by the

petitioner on the earlier Essentiality Certificate dated

16.01.2025 is entirely misplaced. As per Explanation 1 to

Regulation 9 of the NMC Regulations, 2023, an Essentiality

Certificate is valid only for the specific proposal for which it

is granted. The present application pertains to a fresh

academic year and a distinct proposal, thereby necessitating

an independent assessment. The State Government is well

within its jurisdiction to conduct a fresh inspection to verify

17

current compliance, especially in light of past deficiencies. It

is also pertinent to submit that there exists no vested or

fundamental right in favour of the petitioner to claim

automatic enhancement of MBBS seats. Such permission is

a statutory privilege subject to strict adherence to regulatory

norms. The right under Article 19(1)(g) is subject to

reasonable restrictions in the interest of maintaining

standards of education under Article 19(6). The Hon’ble

Supreme Court has consistently held that standards in

medical education cannot be compromised. The decision of

the State Government is based on objective criteria, expert

evaluation, and relevant material on record. It cannot be

said to be arbitrary, perverse, or mala fide. It is a settled

proposition that courts, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, do not

sit in appeal over decisions of expert bodies, particularly in

highly technical fields such as medical education, unless

there is manifest illegality, which is absent in the present

case.

12.It is further submitted that the University (Respondent No.3)

has acted strictly in accordance with Section 39(3) of the

Ayush and Health Sciences University Act, 2008, which

mandates issuance of Consent of Affiliation only on the

basis of a valid Essentiality Certificate issued by the State

18

Government. The University has no independent authority to

override or disregard the decision of the State in this regard.

The timeline followed by the respondents is also justified

and necessary to ensure adherence to the schedule

prescribed for submission of applications before the NMC.

There has been no undue haste or arbitrariness; rather, the

respondents acted promptly to facilitate the petitioner’s

participation in the statutory process. It is also relevant to

highlight that as per the governing guidelines and statutory

framework, assessment of an application is carried out

strictly with reference to the number of seats applied for. If

the institution does not meet the requirements for the

requested number of seats, the application cannot be

partially allowed beyond permissible limits unless supported

by adequate compliance. In the present case, while the

petitioner sought a higher increase, the expert committee,

based on objective assessment, found the institution

suitable only for a limited increase, which has already been

granted. Thus, the respondents have acted reasonably and

in the interest of maintaining academic standards.

13.Learned State counsel places emphasis on the fact that,

under the applicable Rules, an institution is entitled to apply

for enhancement of seats only up to a maximum of 100

19

seats at a time. In the present case, the petitioner institution,

whose existing sanctioned intake was 100 seats, sought

enhancement of more than 100 seats in a single application.

It is, therefore, submitted that the very application for

enhancement of seats was not in conformity with the

relevant Rules and was liable to be rejected on that ground

alone. It is further submitted that, notwithstanding the

aforesaid inherent defect in the petitioner's application, the

competent authority granted enhancement of only 50

additional seats, thereby increasing the sanctioned intake

from 100 to 150 seats. However, the petitioner institution is

presently claiming entitlement to an intake of 250 seats,

which is wholly dehors the applicable Rules and

Regulations. Accordingly, it is contended that the petitioner

is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in the present

petition.

14.In view of the aforesaid facts and legal position, it is most

respectfully submitted that the petitioner has failed to make

out any case for interference under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. The impugned actions are legal,

justified, and based on expert findings. Granting the relief as

sought by the petitioner would amount to compelling the

authorities to compromise statutory standards, which is

20

impermissible in law. Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may be pleased to dismiss the present writ petition.

15.Mr. Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for

Respondent No.3 submits that the writ petition, insofar as it

concerns the answering respondent, is misconceived and

liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the role of the

University is purely statutory and consequential in nature.

Under Section 39(3) of the Ayush and Health Sciences

University of Chhattisgarh Act, 2008, the University is

required to issue the Consent of Affiliation only on the basis

of the Essentiality Certificate issued by the State

Government and has no authority to independently assess

or alter the number of seats. Accordingly, the Consent of

Affiliation dated 03.02.2026 was issued strictly in terms of

the Essentiality Certificate granted by Respondent No.2. It is

further submitted that the assessment of infrastructure,

faculty, and other requirements falls within the domain of the

State Government and the National Medical Commission,

and the University has no role in such evaluation. The

petitioner cannot claim enhancement of MBBS seats as a

matter of right, as the same is subject to fulfillment of the

prescribed statutory norms. It is also contended that the

petitioner institution was found deficient, particularly with

21

regard to teaching faculty, and therefore the decision to

grant enhancement of only 50 seats is justified. The

allegation of violation of principles of natural justice is also

denied, as no independent hearing is contemplated at the

stage of issuance of the Consent of Affiliation. It is,

therefore, prayed that the writ petition, insofar as it relates to

Respondent No.3, deserves to be dismissed.

16.Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 – National

Medical Commission submits that the writ petition, insofar as

it relates to the answering respondent, is misconceived and

liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the National

Medical Commission is a statutory regulatory authority

constituted under the National Medical Commission Act,

2019, and its role in granting permission for establishment of

new medical colleges or enhancement of MBBS seats

arises only upon submission of a complete application

accompanied by a valid Essentiality Certificate issued by the

State Government and a valid Consent of Affiliation issued

by the concerned University, as required under the

applicable Regulations. It is further submitted that the

grievance of the petitioner pertains to the Essentiality

Certificate issued by Respondent No.2 and the Consent of

Affiliation issued by Respondent No.3, in which the

22

answering respondent has no role. It is also contended that

the petitioner institution was found to have deficiencies

during inspections conducted by the competent authorities,

particularly with regard to faculty and other infrastructural

requirements, and therefore enhancement of seats cannot

be claimed as a matter of right. The answering respondent

has acted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the

National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and the applicable

Regulations, and no ground is made out for interference by

this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition,

insofar as it relates to Respondent No.4, deserves to be

dismissed.

17.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

18.From the perusal of the record and for deciding the present

petition, it would be appropriate to consider the provisions of

the "Establishment of New Medical Institutions, Starting of

New Medical Courses, Increase of Seats for Existing

Courses and Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023"

(hereinafter referred to as the "Establishment of Medical

Institutions, Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023").

The relevant provisions, which are material for adjudication

of the present case, are extracted below:

23

2. Definition – (c) MARB shall mean the Medical

Assessment and Rating Board duly constituted under

Section 16 of the National Medical Commission Act,

2019.

(f) "Essentiality Certificate" (in its abbreviated form

EC) shall mean written permission from the central or

concerned state government or the Union Territory

administration as the case may be for the

establishment of a new medical institution.

(g) Medical Institution" shall mean a medical

institution as defined in sub-section (i) of Section 2 of

the National Medical Commission Act, 2019; and

shall also include a medical college in its commonly

understood form.

(h) "Inspection" the expression or activity of

'inspection' shall include virtual and/or physical

inspection and/or evaluation of actual and/or digital

records or information.

11. MARB evaluating the application - keeping in

mind the objective of the Act, without prejudice to

anything mard elsewhere in the Regulations, the

MARB shall evaluate the applications received from

the eligible entity under ction 9 above, based on all of

the following broad criteria viz...

a. The desirability and feasibility of setting up the

medical institution at the proposed location.

b. Assess whether the eligible entity fulfils the

required conditions prescribed by the corresponding

MSRs in vogue, which shall include physical

24

infrastructure, qualified faculty, and adequate clinical

material in terms of hospital, laboratory, patients,

clinical procedures and others as specified in the

corresponding MSR/s.

c. Assess whether the scheme submitted by the

applicant shows that, once established the medical

institution will reasonably sustain itself.

CHAPTER-III

SCHEME FOR INCREASE OF SEATS FOR THE

EXISTING COURSES IN A MEDICAL INSTITUTION

17. No medical institution shall increase the seats of

any of the ongoing courses without prior permission

of the MARB.

Provided no grant of permission for an increase in

seats will be given by the MARB if the medical

institution has not admitted earlier sanctioned seats.

18. Without prejudice to anything stated in section 17

above, the application for an increase in the seats

shall be accompanied with-

(a) Consent of affiliation from the recognized

university concerned for the proposed number of

seats in the specified courses in writing; and

(b). Such prescribed application fees and bank

guarantees as determined by the MARB from time to

time by way of Notification; and

(c) Any other documents as may be prescribed while

inviting applications.

19. Once the application for an increase of seats is

25

received from the medical institution, the MARB shall

what the same on its merit before granting approval.

Provided the same criteria indicated in Chapter 11 of

these Regulations shall apply mutatis mutandis for

such evaluation.

CHAPTER-IV

ASSESSMENT AND RATING

20. Assessment by the MARB for the purpose of

rating a medical institution - The MARB shall conduct

an sessment and rating of all medical institutions and

shall be vested with all such authority in discharging

its functions under the Act.

Provided, without prejudice to anything stated in

these Regulations, the MARB may appoint one or

more independent third-party agency or agencies to

conduct an assessment and rating of medical

institutions, and on its behalf.

Provided further the MARB may prepare detailed

guidelines in appointing independent third-party

agency or agencies to carry on the work of

assessment and rating of medical institutions.

Provided further that, if appointed the independent

third-party agency or agencies shall have such power

as indicated in their appointment letter issued by the

MARB.”

19.It would be apposite to refer to the recent public

notice/instructions dated 22.12.2025 issued by the National

26

Medical Commission, through the Medical Assessment and

Rating Board (MARB), inviting online applications for the

establishment of new medical colleges intending to

commence various undergraduate medical courses. The

aforesaid notice also prescribes important instructions

governing the submission and processing of applications. It

sets out the eligibility conditions, procedural requirements,

timelines, and the manner in which applications are required

to be submitted through the online portal. The application

process, as delineated in the said notice, is reproduced

hereunder:

“ IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS

1. Application process

Application process may be inferred from the quiding

document as annexed herewith as Annexure A. (See

annexure A - Guidelines for UG applications)

2. Scheme as per section 28(2) of NMC Act, 2019

An accepted application with all mandatory relevant

documents and containing such particulars,

accompanied by such fee and in such manner as

may be specified by relevant regulations shall form a

valid scheme for the purpose of section 28(2) of the

Act. An incomplete application shall not be

considered as a valid scheme.

3. Assessment will be done as per the MSR for

requested number of seats. If facilities are not

27

sufficient for the requested number of seats,

allotment of lesser number of seats will not be

considered. (For example, if an applicant has applied

to establish a new college for 150 seats, the

assessment will be done as per MSR for 150 seats

and accordingly decision will be taken with regard to

sanction to the college. If the requirements are not

adequate for 150 seats, the application will be

rejected and will not be considered for establishment

of the institution with lesser number of seats like 50

or 100 even though available facilities may be

adequate for such lesser number of seats) .No

further communication with regard to this shall be

entertained at any time and at any level.

4. An applicant can apply for increase in intake of

maximum of 100 seats at a time.

5. Assessment

•(Assessment will be carried out for the accepted

application which shall be considered as forming a

valid scheme to open a Medical Institution.

Incomplete Application will be rejected and no further

communication will be entertained. The assessment

process includes the assessment of the faculty,

infrastructure, Institution through and clinical load of

the Institution through physical/virtual/hybrid mode.

•Notwithstanding anything stated elsewhere, the

MARB determines the appropriate method of

assessment and/or inspection, before granting

permission to the applicant to establish a medical

institution or increase in the intake of seats. Provided

28

such methods shall include, but not be limited to

scrutiny of documents in digital or another form,

NMC AEBAS attendance, verification of Live Video

Feed, Photographs, Hospital Management

Information System (HMIS) data or physical/virtual

assessment on any day at any time etc.

•The MARB will assess the accepted applications for

establishment of a medical college through a team of

assessors. MARB reserves the right to assess

through either physical or virtual/hybrid mode. The

assessment process for UG applications may be

conducted over two days, if not completed in one

day.

•The assessors will conduct the assessment to

examine the infrastructure, quality of medical

education, faculty, AEBAS data, clinical material &

other clinical indicators, and financial status of the

college to ensure compliance with latest NMC

guidelines. They may also conduct interactions with

staff & students during the assessment.

•For applications with respect to establishment of new

MBBS College, all Faculty as per MSR shall be

registered in the AEBAS of NMC and shall be

physically present in the institution within 15 days

from the last date of submission of applications. If

any college has applied for increase in intake of

seats, it should have mandatorily maintained the

faculties and staff as per the MSR for the existing

seats for the previous academic years. They shall

have the additional faculties required for the

29

requested number of increase in the intake of seats

and such faculties shall be registered in AEBAS and

physically present in the institution within 15 days

from the last date of submission of application. If

they have failed to maintain the required faculty

position as mandated above, the application for the

increase in the intake of seats shall not be

considered. And they shall be liable for the penalty to

be decided by MARB. On the day of Inspection,

faculty and staff registered in AEBAS and physically

present before 10 AM will only be considered for

assessment.

•THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK DOES NOT

CONTEMPLATE A "WORK-IN-PROGRESS"

STATUS AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION:

RATHER, IT OBLIGATES READINESS AND

DEMONSTRABLE COMPLIANCE AB INITIO.

THEREFORE, ANY PLEA OF BEING IN

THEPROCESS OF COMPLETING

INFRASTRUCTURE OR REQUESTING

ADDITIONAL TIME DEFEATS THE VERY OBJECT

OF THE SCHEME UNDER THE ACT AND

REGULATIONS AND IS WHOLLY

IMPERMISSIBLE. FURTHER, REFUSAL / NON

COOPERATION IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS

SHALL ALSO BE LIABLE FOR REJECTION OF

APPLICATION.”

20.So far as the Essentiality Certificate is concerned, the

30

aforesaid notice prescribes the format in which the

certificate is required to be issued and also stipulates the

requisite conditions that are required to be fulfilled. The

relevant format of the Essentiality Certificate, along with the

conditions prescribed therein, is reproduced hereinbelow:

“ESSENTIALITY CERTIFICATE

(To be provided by the respective State Government/UT)

FileNo.

Date

Name of issuing authority/Department

Name of the State Government/UT Government

Herewith, Essentiality Certificate (EC) as per requirement

in NMC regulation is accorded to

_(name of the proposed medical college), for

establishment of new Undergraduate Medical

College/Institution at ........ (complete address of the

proposed Institution).

1. This Essentiality Certificate shall be valid and

applicable to all the new Post- Graduate courses to

be started by this Medical College/Institution in

future & for increase in intake of seats for both

Under-Graduate & Post-Graduate Courses.

2. The government has confirmed the desirability and

feasibility of establishing this Institution based on

the current need of the Doctors in this area.

31

3. It is further certified that in case fresh admissions in

UG or PG courses are stopped by the NMC for any

reason, the State/UT Government shall take over

the responsibility of the students already admitted in

the College with the direction of the NMC.

4. Relevant information to justify essentiality is as below-

i. No. of UG medical college/institutions already existing

in the respective state/UT.

ii. No. of PG stand alone medical college/institutions

already existing in the respective state/UT.

iii. Number of UG admissions in the medical colleges in

the respective State/UT.

iv. Number of PG admissions of the applied specialties in

the medical colleges of the respective State/UT.

v. Total population of the respective State/UT.

vi. Total number of allopathic doctor population registered

with the State Medical Council of the respective

State/UT.

vii. Doctor population ratio in the respective State/UT.”

21.Though learned counsel for the petitioner institution has

submitted that adequate opportunity was not afforded to it

and that the relevant enquiry report and other documents

were not supplied, thereby depriving the institution of an

opportunity to rectify the deficiencies, the said submission

does not merit acceptance. It has been contended that, had

32

the enquiry report and the deficiencies noticed by the

inspecting authorities been communicated to the petitioner

institution, the same could have been rectified before the

impugned decision was taken. According to the petitioner,

the non-supply of the relevant material has resulted in

violation of the principles of natural justice. The aforesaid

contention, however, does not appear to be in accordance

with law. The record reveals that the enquiry for issuance of

the Essentiality Certificate as well as the enquiry relating to

the proposal for enhancement of intake capacity of the

medical college were conducted in the premises of the

petitioner institution itself. The inspection was carried out

with the knowledge and participation of the officers and

representatives of the petitioner institution, who assisted the

enquiry team during the inspection. The deficiencies, if any,

were those existing in the infrastructure and facilities of the

institution, which were within the exclusive knowledge of the

petitioner institution. In such circumstances, the submission

that the petitioner institution was unaware of the deficiencies

or was deprived of an opportunity to rectify the same merely

because a copy of the enquiry report was not supplied does

not inspire confidence. The deficiencies recorded during the

inspection pertained to matters existing within the institution

33

and were observed during the inspection conducted in the

presence of its officials. Therefore, the plea that the

petitioner institution had no knowledge of such deficiencies

cannot be accepted.

22.Secondly, the record further reveals that, upon the request

made by the petitioner institution, a re-inspection was also

conducted. The first inspection was carried out on

05.01.2026. Thereafter, a notice dated 24.01.2026 was

issued, pursuant to which a re-inspection was conducted on

02.02.2026. Even during the re-inspection, the deficiencies

noticed during the earlier inspection were found to be

subsisting and remained unrectified. Thereafter, upon due

consideration of the assessment report submitted by the

Committee, the competent authority issued the Essentiality

Certificate on 03.02.2026 after taking into consideration all

relevant aspects of the matter. The principal deficiency

noticed by the inspecting team pertained to the shortage of

teaching faculty. Such deficiency cannot be treated as a

minor or technical irregularity capable of being cured merely

by grant of additional time. Adequate teaching faculty

constitutes the very foundation for imparting quality medical

education and is one of the essential requirements for grant

of an Essentiality Certificate as well as for consideration of

34

any proposal seeking enhancement of intake capacity. The

deficiency in faculty strength was found to exist not only

during the initial inspection but also during the re-inspection

conducted after affording sufficient opportunity to the

petitioner institution to rectify the shortcomings. In such

circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner institution

was denied a reasonable opportunity to comply with the

prescribed norms.

23.Apart from the aforesaid deficiencies, the application

submitted by the petitioner institution itself suffers from an

inherent infirmity. As per the applicable Regulations and

Guidelines governing enhancement of intake capacity, an

existing medical institution is permitted to apply for

enhancement of seats only up to a maximum of 100 seats at

a time. However, from the pleadings as well as the

application submitted by the petitioner institution, it is

evident that the petitioner sought enhancement of intake

capacity by 150 seats in a single application, which is ex

facie contrary to the governing Regulations. Thus, the very

application seeking enhancement of intake capacity was not

maintainable, being in violation of the prescribed eligibility

conditions. The assessment process prescribed under the

applicable Regulations contemplates evaluation of the

35

institution with regard to faculty strength, infrastructure,

clinical material and other statutory requirements through

physical, virtual or hybrid modes, as may be determined by

the Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB). In the

present case, the assessment was carried out through

physical inspection. The MARB is empowered to determine

the appropriate mode of assessment, which may include

scrutiny of documents in digital or any other form,

verification through the National Medical Commission

AEBAS attendance system, examination of live video feeds,

photographs, Hospital Management Information System

(HMIS) data, and physical or virtual assessment at any time.

24.The applicable Regulations further mandate that every

institution seeking enhancement of intake capacity must

have maintained the requisite faculty and staff strength

prescribed under the Minimum Standard Requirements

(MSR) for its existing intake during the preceding academic

years. In addition thereto, the institution must possess the

additional faculty required for the proposed increase in

seats, and such faculty members must be duly registered in

the AEBAS system and be physically present in the

institution within fifteen days from the last date prescribed

for submission of the application. The Regulations further

36

provide that where an institution fails to maintain the

prescribed faculty strength in the manner stipulated, its

application for enhancement of intake capacity shall not be

considered and it shall also be liable for such penalty as

may be imposed by the Medical Assessment and Rating

Board (MARB). In the present case, the petitioner institution

admittedly failed to satisfy the mandatory requirement

relating to faculty strength. Consequently, the competent

authority committed no illegality in declining to grant the

benefit sought by the petitioner institution.

25.From a perusal of the aforesaid Guidelines and the

pleadings of the parties, it is evident that the petitioner

institution has failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements

prescribed for enhancement of intake capacity. Firstly, the

petitioner institution submitted an application seeking

enhancement of intake capacity by more than 100 seats at a

time, which is ex facie contrary to the applicable Regulations

and Guidelines. The Regulations clearly contemplate that an

institution may seek enhancement only up to a maximum of

100 seats in a single application. Therefore, the application

itself was not in conformity with the prescribed statutory

framework. Secondly, the inspection reports reveal that

there was a substantial deficiency in the strength of teaching

37

faculty. The inspections were conducted on two separate

occasions, yet the requisite number of faculty members was

not found to be available during either inspection. The

applicable Guidelines specifically mandate that an institution

applying for enhancement of intake capacity must not only

maintain the prescribed faculty strength for its existing intake

but must also have the additional faculty required for the

proposed increase in seats. Such faculty members are

required to be duly registered in the AEBAS system and be

physically present in the institution within fifteen days from

the last date prescribed for submission of the application.

The petitioner institution admittedly failed to satisfy this

mandatory requirement. In view of the aforesaid

deficiencies, the application submitted by the petitioner

institution for enhancement of intake capacity was itself

liable to be rejected. Consequently, the petitioner cannot

claim, as a matter of right, issuance of an Essentiality

Certificate for the entire enhancement sought by it. On the

contrary, the record reflects that despite the aforesaid

deficiencies, the respondent-State, after taking into

consideration the inspection reports, the available

infrastructure, clinical load and other relevant parameters,

granted enhancement of 50 seats only and accordingly

38

issued the Essentiality Certificate to that limited extent.

Thus, the respondents adopted a balanced and pragmatic

approach by restricting the enhancement to the extent

justified by the available infrastructure, faculty strength and

clinical material, instead of rejecting the proposal in its

entirety. In such circumstances, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the action of the respondent

authorities neither suffers from arbitrariness nor from any

procedural or legal infirmity warranting interference in

exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India.

26.In the matter of Medical Council of India v. Vedantaa

Institute of Academic Excellence Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2018) 7

SCC 225, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where the

deficiencies found during inspection are of the nature

contemplated under Regulation 8(3), the college cannot be

permitted to rectify them in that academic year merely on the

basis of judicial directions. The Hon’ble Court further held that

High Courts should not direct grant of permission or

admissions contrary to the statutory Regulations and that

gross deficiencies disentitle the institution from renewal or

enhancement.

27.In the matter of Subharti Medical College v. Union of India,

39

AIRONLINE 2017 SC 642, wherein the case concerned

enhancement of MBBS intake from 100 to 150 seats and the

inspection disclosed deficiencies relating to faculty, residents,

bed occupancy and clinical material. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court upheld the refusal of permission and held that the

Central Government is entitled to rely upon the inspection

report where deficiencies are substantial. The Hon’ble Court

reiterated that enhancement of seats is not a matter of right

and depends upon strict compliance with the statutory

requirements.

28.In Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical

Sciences (KIMS) & Ors., (2016) 11 SCC 530, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that the standards prescribed by the

Medical Council/NMC are mandatory. If deficiencies are found

during inspection, permission cannot be granted merely on

sympathetic considerations. The Court observed that

maintenance of medical education standards overrides private

or institutional interests.

29.Furthermore, in Royal Medical Trust (Regd.) v. Union of

India, (2015) 10 SCC 19, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid

down principles governing grant of permission to medical

colleges. It held that compliance with minimum standards is

indispensable and deficiencies affecting medical education

40

cannot be ignored. It also held that judicial review is confined

to examining the decision-making process and not substituting

the expert opinion of the regulatory authorities.

30.Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case,

aforesaid dictums laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,

this Court is of the considered opinion that the contention

advanced by the petitioner institution regarding non-supply of

the inspection reports dated 23.01.2026 and 02.02.2026 does

not merit acceptance. The inspections were admittedly

conducted in the presence of the representatives and officers

of the petitioner institution, who actively participated in and

assisted the inspection team. The principal deficiency noticed

during both inspections related to the shortage of teaching

faculty, a fact which was within the exclusive knowledge of the

petitioner institution itself. Significantly, upon a careful perusal

of the pleadings and submissions advanced on behalf of the

petitioner institution, this Court finds that nowhere has it been

pleaded or asserted that, as on the relevant date, the

institution possessed the requisite number of teaching faculty

as prescribed under the applicable Regulations. In the

absence of such a specific assertion, the plea that the

deficiencies could have been rectified had the inspection

reports been supplied cannot be accepted. The deficiency

pertaining to faculty strength is not one which could be cured

41

within a short span of time merely upon communication of the

inspection report. Availability of the prescribed number of

qualified faculty members is a substantive and mandatory

condition for grant of an Essentiality Certificate and for

consideration of enhancement of intake capacity.

31.Likewise, the submission regarding denial of an opportunity of

hearing is also liable to be rejected. The inspection itself was

conducted in the presence of the officers and representatives

of the petitioner institution, who had full knowledge of the

inspection process and the deficiencies noticed therein. In

such circumstances, it cannot be contended that the petitioner

institution was deprived of an effective opportunity to present

its case or that the principles of natural justice stood violated.

32.The third contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner

institution, namely, that the Essentiality Certificate or

permission for enhancement of intake capacity could be

refused or reduced only upon proof of fraud or

misrepresentation, is equally misconceived and deserves to

be rejected. The applicable Regulations do not make fraud a

pre-condition for refusal of enhancement of seats. The

competent authority is required to examine whether the

institution satisfies the statutory norms and minimum

standards prescribed under the Regulations. In the present

42

case, apart from the serious deficiency in faculty strength, the

petitioner institution had itself submitted an application seeking

enhancement of 150 seats, whereas the applicable

Regulations permit an application for enhancement of only 100

seats at a time. This constitutes an inherent defect in the very

application submitted by the petitioner institution.

33.For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the respondent authorities have rightly taken into

consideration the available infrastructure, clinical material and,

more particularly, the deficiency in the requisite teaching

faculty while issuing the Essentiality Certificate and restricting

the enhancement of intake capacity to 50 seats instead of the

150 seats sought by the petitioner institution. The impugned

decision does not suffer from any arbitrariness, perversity or

illegality warranting interference under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

34.Accordingly, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same

deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

35.No order as to costs.

Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

Judge

Vishakha